Middle Income Countries

Baroness Amos: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development has made the following Statement.
	Although DfID's primary focus is, and will remain, the poorest countries of the world, DfID is producing a middle income countries strategy to ensure that our resources are used effectively to deliver the millennium development goals. We are publishing a consultation paper for discussion with our partners, and a copy has been placed in the Library. Our aim is to secure an improved international consensus around support to middle income countries.
	We will publish the final version of the strategy later in 2004.

Cyprus

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I would like to inform the House of developments in relation to Cyprus since my Written Statement of 1 April. In that Statement I described how, after talks in Cyprus and in Switzerland between the parties, and with the leaders of Greece and Turkey, the UN Secretary-General produced a final version of his comprehensive settlement proposals. I looked forward to the referendums scheduled for 24 April.
	The House will know that the referendum in the Turkish Cypriot community was carried by a large majority; but that in the Greek Cypriot community the settlement proposals were opposed by a large majority. Accordingly the Annan plan, which was designed to be self-executing in time for a reunited island to enter the EU on 1 May, is null and void. (The United Kingdom's offer of territory from the Sovereign Base Areas, which was an integral part of the plan, is also null and void.)
	It follows that, on 1 May, Cyprus will join the EU, but in the absence of a settlement the EU acquis will be suspended in the north of the island.
	On the evening of 24 April, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary made the following statement, which I should like to draw to the attention of the House:
	"For thirty years, the international community has supported the efforts of Cypriots on both sides to resolve their differences and put an end to the tragic division of the island.
	Over the last few years, Kofi Annan and his team have built on earlier efforts and worked tirelessly to bring about a comprehensive settlement package which meets the key interests of the two sides, and provides a solid foundation for a durable bicommunal, bizonal federal solution.
	Britain has always given its strong support to the efforts of the UN and of those on both sides who have shown the courage to seek a realistic compromise solution.
	We will respect the choice which the Greek Cypriots have expressed today. But I hope that they will continue to reflect on whether this choice is the right one for them. By this decision a majority of Greek Cypriot voters has rejected the settlement, despite the prospect it offered of reuniting the island, providing long-sought relief for the refugees of 1974, and progressively lifting the weight of militarisation—all this within the framework of political stability and economic security which European Union membership provides.
	I am glad that the Turkish Cypriot community has voted so clearly for the settlement. The result shows what a fundamental change of attitude has taken place within the Turkish Cypriot community in recent years.
	I understand very well their wish to end their isolation in the world, to join with Greek Cypriots in a reunified island, and to move together into the European Union which is the best guarantee for the future of their collective security and prosperity. I want them to know that this remains our goal too, and that we will continue to work for its ultimate realisation.
	Meanwhile, I would like to assure all Cypriots that, if at any point in the future both communities decide in favour of a comprehensive settlement which would reunify the island in the European Union, the United Kingdom, as a guarantor power, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and a leading EU member state, not to mention a long-standing friend and supporter of Cyprus, will be exerting all its efforts to ensure that the settlement is the practical and political success which Cypriots have for so long deserved".
	These were the policies which he advocated at the 26 April meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council in Luxembourg. They met with wide agreement from our European partners. There was regret that the Union's strong preference for accession by a reunited Cyprus had not proved possible. But there was also determination to build upon the positive aspects of the situation, including the contribution of the governments of Greece and Turkey, and in particular the pro-EU, pro-settlement vote of the Turkish Cypriot conummity. The conclusions in respect of Cyprus issued by the Council on Monday were as follows:
	"The Council noted the results of the referenda in Cyprus on 24 April and expressed its strong regret that the accession to the EU of a united Cyprus will not now be possible on 1 May. The Council expressed its deep appreciation for the determined and sustained efforts of the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and his colleagues in the search for a comprehensive solution of the Cyprus problem. The Council also welcomed the contribution made by Greece and Turkey. It expressed its determination to ensure that the people of Cyprus will soon achieve their shared destiny as citizens of a united Cyprus in the European Union.
	The Turkish Cypriot community have expressed their clear desire for a future within the European Union. The Council is determined to put an end to the isolation of the Turkish Cypriot community. The Council invited the Commission to bring forward comprehensive proposals to this end, with particular emphasis on the economic integration of the island and on improving contact between the two communities and with the EU. The Council recommended that the 259 million euros already earmarked for the northern part of Cyprus in the event of a settlement now be used for this purpose.
	The Council asked COREPER to expedite discussion of the regulation on a regime under Article 2 of Protocol 10 of the Act of Accession with a view to its adoption before 1 May, taking due account of the Council's desire to send a signal of encouragement to the Turkish Cypriot community that its future rests in a united Cyprus within the European Union".
	By these and other means we intend to demonstrate Europe's concern for the wellbeing of Turkish Cypriots. In the same spirit, we have noted the announced intention of the Cyprus Government to support the economic strengthening of the Turkish Cypriot community and to facilitate trade.
	As these conclusions indicate, neither the UK nor the EU as a whole is proposing any change in our long-standing and consistent policy of non-recognition of "TRNC".
	We look forward to a report from the Secretary-General during the course of May about the future of his good offices mission.
	We continue to believe that the Annan plan represented the best available blueprint for a settlement. We share the UN Secretary-General's hope, expressed after the "no" vote on 24 April, that the Greek Cypriot electorate may arrive at a different view in the fullness of time, after a profound and sober assessment of their decision.

Learning Disability Services

Lord Warner: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Community (Dr Stephen Ladyman) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement today.
	I am today publishing Valuing People: Moving Forward Together, the Government's second annual report on learning disability services. The report describes progress made in implementing the programme of action set out in the White Paper Valuing People: A New Strategy for Learning Disability for the 21st Century (Cm 5086) and responds to Rights, Independence, Choice and Inclusion, the second annual report of the Learning Disability Task Force, which was published in February this year.
	Valuing People is a cross-government strategy. In last year's annual report, Making Change Happen (HC 5114), we acknowledged the Learning Disability Task Force's concern that government as a whole were not giving enough priority to people with learning disabilities and undertook to talk to government departments about learning disability and the impact of their work on people with learning disabilities. Valuing People: Moving Forward Together reports on that work and describes areas where departments have worked with, or will be working with, learning disabled people to ensure that they can be more fully included in society. It records a wide range of activity covering many aspects of daily life:
	The Department of Trade and Industry plans to work with people with learning disabilities to make sure that Consumer Direct provides information in a way that they can understand;
	The Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills are jointly supporting a conference later this year on parenting and people with learning disabilities;
	Under the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's Supporting People initiative, more than £400 million has been allocated to services for people with learning disabilities;
	The Department of Health has awarded the Home Farm Trust £194,000 over three years to set up a self sustaining national network of organisations supporting family carers who have adult relatives with learning disabilities;
	The Department for Transport has funded a project with Transport for London and a self advocacy group to make buses and tubes in London easier for people with learning disabilities to use;
	The Department for Constitutional Affairs has been consulting people with learning disabilities over the Mental Incapacity Bill.
	Today's report, like last year's, is written in an accessible form, using pictures and straightforward, jargon-free language. We commissioned people with learning disabilities from the London consultative group to advise us on making the report accessible and I should like to acknowledge the help we received from them. It is important that people with learning disabilities can see for themselves what is being done to improve the services they use and to increase the opportunities available to them to lead the type of life the rest of us take for granted.
	Valuing People said that it would take a minimum of five years for its programme to be implemented. We are now over half way through that period and continue to make good progress.
	Copies of Valuing People: Moving Forward Together have been placed in the Library.

English Indices of Deprivation

Lord Rooker: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	Today I am announcing the publication of the revised Indices of Deprivation 2004.
	The Indices of Deprivation 2004 (ID 2004) combine statistical indicators on economic and social issues into a single score and rank for each small area in England. This enables us to rank small areas according to their level of deprivation. The indices are used by govermnent and other agencies to identify where there are concentrations of disadvantaged people, so that resources could be targeted where there is greatest need.
	The new index is a significant improvement on previous indices. It uses a new base geography, which is more consistent over time and in terms of size. This allows us to overcome some of the problems with electoral wards, which were of varying sizes and which were regularly changed. The new super output areas allow us to better identify where very small pockets of deprivation exist and to track changes over time.
	We have also been able to include new indicators that give a more precise measurement of particular aspects of deprivation. For example, with the new pupil level annual school census, we are able to attribute educational deprivation to the area where the child lives rather than attributing it to the school, as was the case in the past. We have also overcome previous problems with crime data and have now included a crime domain for the first time. There is also a new living environment domain, which aims to identify deprivation in the indoors and outdoors living environment. Both of these new domains were strongly supported in the two periods of public consultation held to determine the best process for updating the 2000 index.
	The index also allows us to rank local authority districts. Districts are complex to describe as a whole and as a result six different measures have been designed which focus on different aspects of multiple deprivation in the district. No single measure is favoured over another, as there is no single best way of describing or comparing districts. The six measures are:
	The concentration is an important way of identifying districts' hot spots of deprivation;
	The extent portrays how widespread high levels of deprivation are in a district;
	The income scale measure gives the number of people in the district who are income deprived;
	The employment scale measure gives the number of people in the district who are employment deprived;
	The average of SOA ranks summarises the district as a whole, taking into account the ranks of both the deprived and the least deprived SOAs;
	The average of SOA scores also describes the district as a whole, taking into account the full range of SOA scores across a district.
	The table below summarises the districts that are among the 50 most deprived on each of the six district measures.
	
		
			 Rank Rank of AverageScore Rank of AverageRank Rank of Extent Rank ofConcentration Rank of IncomeScale Rank of EmploymentScale 
			 1 Knowsley Tower Hamlets Tower Hamlets Knowsley Birmingham Birmingham 
			 2 Liverpool Hackney Hackney Liverpool Liverpool Liverpool 
			 3 Manchester Knowsley Islington Manchester Manchester Manchester 
			 4 Tower Hamlets Manchester Manchester Middlesbrough Leeds Leeds 
			 5 Hackney Islington Liverpool Newcastle upon Tyne Bradford Sheffield 
			 6 Easington Liverpool Newham Kingston upon Hull, City of Sheffield Bradford 
			 7 Nottingham Newham Easington Salford Newham Sunderland 
			 8 Islington Easington Knowsley Nottingham Tower Hamlets Wirral 
			 9 Middlesbrough Nottingham Nottingham Wirral Hackney Wigan 
			 10 Kingston upon Hull, City of Kingston upon Hull, City of Middlesbrough Rochdale Nottingham Newcastle upon Tyne 
			 11 Newham Southwark Kingston upon Hull, City of Hartlepool Sandwell Wakefield 
			 12 Hartlepool Haringey Southwark Redcar and Cleveland Leicester Nottingham 
			 13 Salford Barking and Dagenham Haringey Bradford Wirral Doncaster 
			 14 Halton Sandwell Halton Blackpool Bristol, City of Bristol, City of 
			 15 Haringey Stoke-on-Trent Hartlepool Halton Lambeth Sefton 
			 16 Birmingham Halton Birmingham Stockton-on-Tees Kingston upon Hull, City of Kirklees 
			 17 Stoke-on-Trent Lambeth Sandwell Birmingham Haringey Stoke-on-Trent 
			 18 Southwark Hartlepool Stoke-on-Trent Gateshead Southwark Sandwell 
			 19 Sandwell Middlesbrough Blackburn with Darwen Tower Hamlets Newcastle upon Tyne Kingston upon Hull, City of 
			 20 Blackburn with Darwen Birmingham Salford Westminster Sunderland Barnsley 
			 21 Blackpool Salford South Tyneside St. Helens Kirklees Lambeth 
			 22 Sunderland Blackpool Sunderland Blackburn with Darwen Brent Leicester 
			 23 Newcastle upon Tyne Camden Wolverhampton Derby Lewisham Coventry 
			 24 Rochdale Greenwich Camden Sheffield Wolverhampton Newham 
			 25 Camden Sunderland Barking and Dagenham Easington Coventry Southwark 
			 26 Barking and Dagenham Waltham Forest Newcastle upon Tyne Leicester Doncaster Hackney 
			 27 South Tyneside Blackburn with Darwen Gateshead Stoke-on-Trent Ealing Salford 
			 28 Wolverhampton Wear Valley Rochdale Oldham Enfield Bolton 
			 29 St. Helens Hastings Lambeth Sunderland Wakefield Wolverhampton 
			 30 Gateshead South Tyneside Mansfield Bolton Islington Knowsley 
			 31 Leicester Barrow-in-Furness Barnsley Leeds Croydon Rotherham 
			 32 Lambeth St. Helens Blackpool Bristol, City of Walsall Haringey 
			 33 Barrow-in-Furness Bolsover St. Helens Barrow-in-Furness Sefton Gateshead 
			 34 Barnsley Barnsley Doncaster North East Lincolnshire Stoke-on-Trent Tower Hamlets 
			 35 Mansfield Leicester Greenwich Sefton Salford Dudley 
			 36 Wear Valley Mansfield Hastings Preston Greenwich Walsall 
			 37 Hastings Wolverhampton Bradford Barnsley Waltham Forest Lewisham 
			 38 Bradford Lewisham Barrow-in-Furness Coventry Knowsley Islington 
			 39 Greenwich Gateshead Leicester Burnley Bolton Brent 
			 40 Doncaster Rochdale Wansbeck Mansfield Wigan St. Helens 
			 41 Redcar and Cleveland Penwith Walsall Hastings Dudley Rochdale 
			 42 Burnley Doncaster Oldham Wolverhampton Rotherham Ealing 
			 43 Wansbeck Sedgefield Preston Haringey Camden Brighton and Hove 
			 44 Waltham Forest Burnley Burnley Islington Derby Oldham 
			 45 Bolsover Tameside Wear Valley Great Yarmouth Barnsley Tameside 
			 46 Oldham Wansbeck Sedgefield Wansbeck Rochdale Plymouth 
			 47 Wirral Derwentside Norwich Wigan Barnet Camden 
			 48 Westminster Wigan Bolton Doncaster Oldham South Tyneside 
			 49 Tameside Westminster Redcar and Cleveland Wear Valley Gateshead North Tyneside 
			 50 Wigan Ashfield Bolsover Tameside Brighton and Hove Croydon

Amalgamation of Divisions of General Commissioners

Lord Filkin: On 26 April 2004 I made an order under Section 2(6) of the Taxes Management Act 1970 amalgamating a number of divisions in Oxfordshire, Somerset and Gloucestershire with effect from 1 May 2004 and a number of divisions in Devon with effect from 1 June 2004, as follows:
	Bideford, Barnstaple and Tavistock divisions are merged into North and West Devon Division; Moreton and Henley divisions are merged into Oxfordshire South Divisions; Frome and Wells divisions are merged into Frome and Wells Division; Northleach and Cheltenham divisions are merged into Cheltenham Division; and Stroud and Whitstone divisions are merged into Stroud Division.
	All the amalgamations were made at the request of the general commissioners in all the divisions with the aim of improving the organisational efficiency of the divisions concerned. I have placed a copy of the order amalgamating the divisions in the Libraries of both Houses.

Small Business Service: Business Plan 2004–05

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Hewitt) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The Small Business Service (SBS) is today publishing its business plan for 2004–05. I have deposited copies of the plan in the House of Commons Library. Electronic versions are available on the SBS website (www.sbs.gov.uk).
	The Government published a cross-departmental action plan A government action plan for small business in January. The action plan defines the Government's programme of work going forward and is the foundation for the 2004–05 SBS business plan. The SBS has a leadership role as a centre of expertise, an innovator and an engine for change within government based on its experience of delivering services to small businesses and its extensive research base and network of contacts.
	The business plan sets out what the SBS will do to drive forward implementation of the government action plan over the next 12 months. It also sets out the changes being made within the SBS to make a reality of its leadership role within government on small business issues.
	The plan identifies eight key agency targets for 2004–05 grouped—where relevant—under the strategy to which they relate.
	Building an enterprise culture
	Deliver a national enterprise awareness event involving public and private sector partners in November 2004.
	Encouraging a dynamic start-up market
	Complete the establishment of the Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship by May 2004.
	Building the capability for small business growth
	Ensure by March 2005 that Business Link (both the website and the face-to-face service) is effectively promoting and delivering the DTI's new portfolio of business support products—particularly those relating to innovation, knowledge transfer and best practice.
	Improving access to finance for small businesses
	Complete an action plan for carrying forward the recommendations of the review of the Small Firms Loan Guarantee by December 2004, and launch a pathfinder round of Enterprise Capital Funds within one month of state aid approval being received.
	Encouraging more enterprise in disadvantaged communities and underrepresented groups
	Launch the second round of the City Growth Strategies and Phoenix Fund Building on the Best projects from April 2004, monitor their progress and begin a programme of events to share best practice by February 2005.
	Improving small businesses' experience of government services
	Plan the transfer of responsibility for the management of Business Link operator contracts to the regional development agencies within a national framework which maintains core service standards with effect from April 2005.
	Developing better regulation and policy
	Complete a public consultation so that government can consider whether to extend the concept of common commencement dates for regulations to new areas of domestic law, and publish the responses.
	Delivering the government action plan for small business
	Monitor, evaluate and drive forward implementation of the government-wide action plan for small business published in January 2004, updating the web-based implementation programme available at www.sbs.gov.uk on a regular basis to record the progress being made.